The Conservative Party - Part Two.

[sheffbag 227]

On 08/09/2021 at 01:50, Anna B said:

I keep on repeating this.... We must get the super rich like Bezos, Musk and assorted characters that lie under the radar to pay their fair share of tax. They wouldn't even miss it. A wealth tax of 0.5% on people with more than £20 million in the bank would solve our financial problems at a stroke, and they'd still have plenty left for a new yacht or two.  

 

Other countries seem able to do it, why can't we?

 

Utter rubbish.

 

You reference people who aren't even british so how do you tax them

 

The top 1% of earners in the UK pay over 27% of income tax collected. 

 

The bottom 50% earners pay less than 10% of all tax collected

 

How much more do you want to tax them?

 

How do you assess the £20M in the bank? is that total assets? Is it value of stock?  is it money in the bank? what if i put £15M in one and 10M in another, does that avoid it?

Do i pay a wealth tax if i win the lottery?

Do i pay a wealth tax if i inherit money?

 

Is the "wealth tax" calculated on money over 20M or just all money they have.  

 

Which other countries do it? I'll answer for you - 5.  The highest number of countries with a wealth tax was 12. 7 of those have scrapped it as either not feasible or unlawful 

 

France currently have one -  Its based on real estate value over £800K at 0.5-1.5% so is a higher figure tax wise and well less than your undefined "0.5% on £20M in the bank". The money generated equals 0.19% of tax revenue.  On average across the 5 countries it accounts for 1.2% of revenues. Thats not "solving our financial problems at a stroke"

 

https://taxfoundation.org/wealth-taxes-in-the-oecd/

 

If you are going to spout rubbish like "tax the rich" at least research it first. Without the top 1% of earners (the people you dont like) then the tax burden on the rest of us would be massive and would hit the lowest earners hard regardless of the fact that the Conservatives have doubled the tax free amount people can earn in the last 10 years to support low paid people

 

Edited September 9, 2021 by sheffbag

[Carbuncle 0]

7 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

They are taxed.   It has been explained multiple times.

 

You're deluded fantasy of some global utopia where all are equal and there is no competition and no advantages and no dominance it's quite frankly child dreams.

 

It's business. In fact it's what all of us do all the time. We all take advantage of tax incentives, cheap labour, cheap deals, cheap products, savings schemes, charity donations, lotteries, gambling, employee benefits, carbon offset, home insulation and solar schemes, electric vehicle incentives, just a handful of the ways we all are at it.  All jumping at the chance to reduce our liabilities to the taxman.  Not a single one of us have a problem with exploiting the resources, materials, labour nor location if it means we can obtain service, goods or commodity for a reduced impact on our personal outlay.  

 

The amount of monies may be vastly different but the principles are still exactly the same between Joe Bloggs on the streets and the corporation of Amazon.

 

These corporations became successful by being good businesses. The billionaire's became that way because they are good businessman. No matter how much you try and propose it nobody is going to be morally blackmailed into paying more than the law requires them to do so.  

 

No global nation is going to give up there chance of dominance by conforming to some universal, all equal, shared, flat rate circumstance.   This is even more more prevalent in the  developing Nations, where after years in the shadows, they are now rising an emerging as dominant powers of their own with some even starting to take over the established West. Do you think for one second they are going to give up such position after all these years and effort.

 

Wealth is power. Money does make the world go around. Some people need to wake up and realise that.

This post is misleading. You are suggesting that businesses that conform to the law end up to paying a fair amount of tax. This is arguable based on ones specific notion of fairness but by no means is it some established fact.

 

Multinationals are able, at least to some extent, to go 'tax regime shopping'. In principle, they are supposed to pay tax on profit where it is earned but there is wiggle room as to exactly where profit is earned which multinationals can sometimes exploit by choosing to "earn" some or all of the profit in a low tax jurisdiction. This can lead to tax bills which while they may conform to law are readily seen to be grossly unfair.

Edited September 9, 2021 by Carbuncle

[ECCOnoob 1,029]

2 hours ago, Carbuncle said:

This post is misleading. You are suggesting that businesses that conform to the law end up to paying a fair amount of tax. This is arguable based on ones specific notion of fairness but by no means is it some established fact.

 

Multinationals are able, at least to some extent, able to go 'tax regime shopping'. In principle, they are supposed to pay tax on profit where it is earned but there is wiggle room as to exactly where profit is earned which multinationals can sometimes exploit by choosing to "earn" some or all of the profit in a low tax jurisdiction. This can lead to tax bills which while they may conform to law are readily seen to be grossly unfair.

No no no. Let's not start muddling the issues.

 

It is not about what someone arbitrary deems is fair or what someone morally believes these corporations should be paying.

 

It is a simple response to matters of fact that these corporations do get taxed, pay their tax and therefore should not be shamed or blackmailed into paying more than what their legal duties says they have to do just because someone comes along and personally decides what they are paying isn't enough.  

 

Put bluntly, unless that someone is HMRC what the hell has it got to do with them.

 

Yes of course they use reduction schemes or take advantage of multi-jurisdictional status. It's good business practice. They are there to make money.  Businesses don't survive by handing over more money than they need to. Just exactly the same way that most average men and women in the street dont choose to overpay unless they had two.  Consumers on the street shop around or go online to import from different countries or take advantage of sweatshop labour producing their bargain basement goods quite happily so what right do we got to be criticising corporations doing the same principles.

Edited September 9, 2021 by ECCOnoob

[Carbuncle 0]

13 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

No no no. Let's not start muddling the issues.

 

It is not about what someone arbitrary deems is fair or what someone morally believes these corporations should be paying.

 

It is a simple response to matters of fact that these corporations do get taxed, pay their tax and therefore should not be shamed or blackmailed into paying more than what their legal duties says they have to do just because someone comes along and personally decides what they are paying isn't enough.  

 

Put bluntly, unless that someone is HMRC what the hell has it got to do with them.

 

Yes of course they use reduction schemes or take advantage of multi-jurisdictional status. It's good business practice. They are there to make money.  Businesses don't survive by handing over more money than they need to. Just exactly the same way that most average men and women in the street dont choose to overpay unless they had two.  Consumers on the street shop around or go online to import from different countries or take advantage of sweatshop labour producing their bargain basement goods quite happily so what right do we got to be criticising corporations doing the same principles.

You have things upside down.

 

First come the morals then the law. Make the law to ensure a fair tax take. Expect the corporations to be amoral but tell them what to pay by way of good law, as far as that is manageable.

 

When you see a situation where you see corporations paying less than seems equitable remake the law so they pay what they should. Of course the corporations will respond to reduce their tax payments. Look again, rinse and repeat.

[RollingJ 2,017]

1 minute ago, Carbuncle said:

You have things upside down.

 

First come the morals then the law. Make the law to ensure a fair tax take. Expect the corporations to be amoral but tell them what to pay by way of good law, as far as that is manageable.

 

When you see a situation where you see corporations paying less than seems equitable remake the law so they pay what they should. Of course the corporations will respond to reduce their tax payments. Look again, rinse and repeat.

Who decides what is 'fair'? Joe Public?

[Longcol 600]

23 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Who decides what is 'fair'? Joe Public?

Yes - in so far as they elect the government - although it can be argued that many vote for self interest rather than "fairness".

[RollingJ 2,017]

2 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Yes - in so far as they elect the government - although it can be argued that many vote for self interest rather than "fairness".

Agreed - but tax levels are decided by the government, based on myriad considerations which Joe Public wouldn't understand - even fully trained and highly qualified accountants/tax advisers struggle with them.

[ECCOnoob 1,029]

57 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Yes - in so far as they elect the government - although it can be argued that many vote for self interest rather than "fairness".

What do you propose to do about it then?

 

You say the public by their choice of government dictates what's a fair amount of tax that should be paid by a corporation....however you also complain that the public vote in their self-served interests.

 

Do you propose morally blackmailing and harassing the public to vote the way that you deem is right?   What makes your choice superior to anyone else's? 

 

Are you going to continue your cycle of enforcement and dictatorship on the rest of the world or does it just happen to our country. In which case, as I explained before, we risk fading into the background and getting overruled and overlooked by a different nation just ready and waiting to dominate and takeover our place on the global market.

Edited September 9, 2021 by ECCOnoob

[Longcol 600]

21 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

What do you propose to do about it then?

 

You say the public by their choice of government dictates what's a fair amount of tax that should be paid by a corporation....however you also complain that the public vote in their self-served interests.

 

Do you propose morally blackmailing and harassing the public to vote the way that you deem is right?   What makes your choice superior to anyone else's? 

 

Are you going to continue your cycle of enforcement and dictatorship on the rest of the world or does it just happen to our country. In which case, as I explained before, we risk fading into the background and getting overruled and overlooked by a different nation just ready and waiting to dominate and takeover our place on the global market.

Where have I advocated any of that?

[RJRB 688]

Happy to see the back of Gavin Williamson and the demotion of Raab.Not so happy with the thought of Nadine Dorries in any position.Culture Secretary haha.

How many jobs can Gove be given,without anyone knowing what he actually does.

There had to be changes but nothing very inspiring that I can see.

[Mister M 1,622]

10 minutes ago, RJRB said:

Happy to see the back of Gavin Williamson and the demotion of Raab.Not so happy with the thought of Nadine Dorries in any position.Culture Secretary haha.

How many jobs can Gove be given,without anyone knowing what he actually does.

There had to be changes but nothing very inspiring that I can see.

As one commentator put it 

It's like going to the park and rearranging the dog turds.

 

 

[Mister M 1,622]

Surprised to see that the DWP SoS Therese Coffey is still in her job after revealing her ignorance of Universal Credit, one of the key policies that she's supposed to be spearheading

Work and pensions secretary Therese Coffey under fire for universal credit cut gaffe | The Independent